Infected after 1984 transfusion, 'yes to compensation, tort is not time-barred'
The diagnosis of Hcv occurred in 2006. The Court: the time limit runs from the day the patient is put in a position to understand the cause of the disease
2' min read
Key points
2' min read
He had been infused with HCV-infected blood in 1984, was not diagnosed with the disease until twenty-two years later, in 2006, but did not apply for compensation until several years later. However, there is no prescription: in fact, the statutory five years do not have to be counted from the time of diagnosis. The 'countdown' must begin from when the patient, lacking specific medical expertise, is put in a position to understand the correlation b>between the transfusion and the pathology detected.
This is what the third civil section of the Court of Cassation ruled in its Order 24541/2025, holding that no doctor had, so to speak, shown the patient the red thread between the prescription of a liver examination, the diagnosis and the previous transfusion, which, moreover, dated back two decades.
The case and the judges' pronouncement
After an admission, the man's medical record indicatedhepatic infection and stated that the patient was aware that he had undergone a transfusion. The medical record also contained a prescription for a specialist examination. Contrary to the view of the court of first instance, the man would not necessarily have been able to trace the diagnosis back to the transfusion. Moreover, it is not possible to assume, as the Court of Appeal had done, that the prescription for the liver examination had been accompanied by an explanation of the aetiology of the infection merely because it is usual.
Wrong, according to the Court of Cassation, was also the second instance court's deduction that the patient, faced with the statute of limitations, could have obtained the necessary information. Recalling pronouncement 576 of 2008 of the United Sections, the judges of legitimacy therefore reiterate that the calculation of the five years for the statute of limitations does not start from the time when the disease manifests itself or from when third parties are able to establish a link between the blood transfusion and the disease, but rather from the day on which the patient is put in a position to understand or be able to understand the aetiology of the pathology from which he is suffering.
